PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
didn't the union owned GM plant just relocate some production facility to Mexico?.....
The Trump Effect? After Carrier pledge to keep jobs in US, more companies may follow
- Thread starter anatta
- Start date
didn't the union owned GM plant just relocate some production facility to Mexico?.....
cawacko
Well-known member
This is eight years later. What was it at the time it was done? They didn't f over the bond holders to not save the jobs
it's more then a zero sum game here. Growing real wealth=growing revenues.
cawacko
Well-known member
There are millions of jobs created and lost each month. If the gov't jumps in to spend millions to save 1K jobs how much would it take to save all of them?
If you really want to save manufacturing jobs slow down technological growth and automation
It's a zero sum game. You are taking money from other taxpayers and the services (some vital) the government provides and giving it to Carrier. There is no value added.
You are not going to grow real wealth with welfare jobs. Indiana certainly is not going to grow their revenues since the deal was done with millions in tax incentives.
Carrier's parent, UTI, is shutting a 700 job factory in Huntington, Ind and a 300 job factory less than a mile away from the Carrier factory is closing, as well.
This is nothing but a PR stunt at the expense of Indiana taxpayers.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
a huge gift to the labor unions at taxpayer expense.....
cawacko
Well-known member
yes, to save the their jobs
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
so you believe......however there is no way to be certain that GM wouldn't have emerged from bankruptcy as an even stronger entity, employing even more workers.....true, the unions wouln't have as big a pension as they currently enjoy.......but isn't that what kept employment back in the first place?.....
cawacko
Well-known member
Bro, Obama did it to try and save their jobs. Not sure how that's even debatable
manufacturing is not a "welfare" job, nor was Carrier "failing" as you claimed before.
And it's not a zero sum game either. You are looking at tax revenues on a static balance sheet where giving to one means taking from another.
The economy is dynamic. success builds on success. Keeping those jobs means that manufacturing ( assembly) plant doesn't shutter.
It's obviously got unused excess capacity - any macro-economic expansion( the real goal) creates new demand for jobs.
Assembly jobs can grow there. I realize this is a simple explanation- but it's an important point to understand.
Job growth, and tax revenues are not static zero sum games. By improving the economic climate (regs/taxes/consumer demand) -
and not allowing outsourcing without some consequences, as well as making manufacturing here more attractive grows GDP/real wealth/jobs.
one obviously cannot intervene on a case by case basis. Carrier was a campaign promise easily solved with a few arm-twists and tax incentives.
The other part of this is growing the economy on a macro basis.
Restricting outsourcing by policies ( and not just tarrifs - but tax policy) along with reducing/eliminating spurious regs allows for growth.
cawacko
Well-known member
How does Carrier differ than Solyndra? (Carrier won't go out of business like Sylondra but it's the gov't picking winners and losers). The gov't decided to save 1K of Carriers jobs, while letting another 1K or so still go overseas. It's crony capitalism that can't be scaled. This is bad all the way around.
Look this slavish adherence to "free markets" isn't getting us anywhere but outsourcing.
I have absolutely no problem with a POTUS ( or a governor) picking a "winner" as long as it's not trying to reinvent the wheel like Solyndra.
Solyndra had superior solar cell design but the competition brought costs down so low on flat arrays -the design advantage
lost to the cost disadvantages of it's R&D/production.
That is picking "winners and losers" -trying to drive a market by government preferences/intervention;
at great cost,and shutting out natural competition. Obama loaned risk capital there.
Carrier is a quick fix to a crisis situation, using well established tools of simple tax incentives.
The two are not even close to the same degree of meddling in markets.
cawacko
Well-known member
Corporate welfare is corporate welfare. There is nothing special about this company that is worthy of the gov't 'saving' 1K out of 2,500 jobs being sent to Mexico. Nothing. If the goal is to save manufacturing jobs then prevent technological advancements which cause more automation. Otherwise it's spending taxpayer money trying to prevent progress and where the future is going. There's no excuse for this.
you are making a principled argument without seeing the apples are not the same as the oranges.
Trying to retard US automation is trying to disadvantage American corps in the long run ( since we can't stop global developments).
It's going to happen -how we respond will determine what jobs are kept or up-trained for, but that is a global challenge all countries have to address
The only thing "special" about Carrier is it's amendable to a quick fix. Is it desirable to save manufacturing jobs or not?
Postulate it is. If so then -what is the deal here? is it economically sound or not. I say it is - with no risk- unlike Solyndra
It isn't like Solyndra at all! Solyndra was in no way positioned as a profitable enterprise. Carrier is already profitable- allowing them to keep their own money, is not the same as giving them tax dollars from others.
cawacko
Well-known member
How are they keeping their own money in this senario?
That's what a tax break is.